False equivalence there, Ruinshin, though I hope you are intelligent enough on your own merits to recognize why it's false. I said that it was the assault was a criminal act and indefensible. But I am not dumb to the reality that the alt-right has explicitly sought to provoke fights with the left at their rallies as one of the tools of their playbook, Ruinshin, and that it has been done before.

And meanwhile you ignore everything else, including the fact that you were flat out wrong and jumped the gun about essentially everything else you have said so far without any sign of regret or apologies? Cool.

Your stance here is "he's lying and faking his injuries, but even if not he deserved it", and you want me to apologize...

You need help dude. Move outside your bubble. Even CNN is calling this out.

I thought he was saying not that he deserved it but that he was actively searching for it.

EDIT: More importantly, I'm troubled by how you apparently dismissed out of hand the contradiction of your claim that leftists were using chemical warfare 'again' (?) in Oregon.

I didnt dismiss it.

I flat out said, Ill trust the cops over journalists running cover for antifa

The cops said it directly, I trust them over biased actors. Especially since there were other left wing actors talking about how its ok because they mixed sugar in with it so its not going to harden.

ESPECIALLY since the media's "debunk" is the guy selling them, which is bullshit. Hes got literally no way to know once its out of his hands.

And yes.

"Again"

The left tried another chem attack at the innaguration ball using butric acid. An active ingredient in stinkbombs, but on its own can cause blistered skin amongst other issues.

EDIT: And, since this is bothering me..

Even if the police are wrong, its still assault. Like, I want to be clear here. I trust the police, but even if they are wrong, Antifa writ large was still commiting assault. Like, at best the alternative here is "Oh yeah they still were barbaric violent assholes, they just didnt intentionally set out to burn people"..

The victim complex is astounding. Anti fascist protesters throw milkshakes on people. Neo-nazis kill people. But both sides are the same, amirite? If neo-nazis were just throwing dairy-based desserts on people, you might have a point, but they actually kill people. Antifa has never killed anyone. Sometimes they punch people and throw stink bombs, and that is definitely assault, and should be prosecuted accordingly, but the false equivalency is ridiculous.

And lol at Andy Ngo claiming his brain was hemorrhaging but was appearing for interviews like 2 days later asking for support on Patreon. What a shameless grifter. The right and some parts of the center needs there to be a thuggish left so they can say "both sides" are just as extreme in the Trump era, even though this is demonstrably untrue. I invite anyone reading to do a little digging of their own.

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Its really astounding how far out of your way you people go to justify bloodshed.

But hey, no use in arguing against evil. I hope you dont choke on it at this point, but thats pretty much inevitable. Yall are just bad people.

You didn't actually refute anything, and by your own words your position here is a matter of trust in cops who you imply are somehow non-biased actors. You are clutching at pearls and trying to guilt trip people, but it's not going to work. How about a real argument instead of the hyperbole and melodrama?

Edit: In other news, Brian Epstein has been arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors. He and Trump have been pretty good buddies for decades, running in the same social circles, going to the same parties and events. This is a man Trump praised because he "likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." It's incredible how hard Trump supporters project flaws onto the left. They fabricate the spurious Pizzagate nonsense, when one of Trumps buddies is an actual child trafficker. One of Trump's more credible accusations of rape (yes, there is more than one) comes from his association with this guy, the incident reportedly occurring at one of Epstein's infamous sex parties.

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Doesn't it seem logical that the side that seems really invested in pushing "both sides are the same" type whataboutism would be the worse of the two sides?

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Are you admitting that camps full of political prisoners are concentration camps? Never thought you'd agree with AOC.

So... do you understand that in modern speech the term "concentration camps" has become synonymous with death camps (e.g. WWII Germany) and not with internment camps (e.g. WWII America)?

Cortez doesn't understand that. Do you understand that?

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis

while expanding concentration camps,

Wow. You too, Genesis? I'm disappointed in you.

What's wrong with the lot of you? A soft-headed child in Congress misspeaks, and you think it's a carte blanche to downplay the Holocaust? You petty little political snots. Recalibrate yourselves back to reality.

So... do you understand that in modern speech the term "concentration camps" has become synonymous with death camps (e.g. WWII Germany) and not with internment camps (e.g. WWII America)?

Cortez doesn't understand that. Do you understand that?

EDIT:

Wow. You too, Genesis? I'm disappointed in you.

What's wrong with the lot of you? A soft-headed child in Congress misspeaks, and you think it's a carte blanche to downplay the Holocaust? You petty little political snots. Recalibrate yourselves back to reality.

Cripes, this is what Trump's done to us.

Nope, the definition never changed. They are camps where people are being concentrated in large numbers. You are the one playing fast and loose with the definitions here. The death camps of the Holocaust were just the final, most extreme form taken by the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The work camps and other holding centers also fall under the definition of "concentration camps". As do the Japanese internment camps in America during WWII, for that matter. And this is all beside the point that the death camps didn't arise out of nothing and nowhere, there was a trajectory of deliberate and methodical dehumanization that brought them into existence. So your argument is "Well, they aren't death camps yet, so everyone needs to calm down." Come up with something better. If anything is being downplayed, it's the human rights abuse and dehumanization going on right under our noses.

This is disappointing to hear from you Grackle.

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is exactly what they are -- they are concentration camps," Ocasio-Cortez told an Instagram Live audience Monday evening. "And if that doesn't bother you ... I want to talk to the people that are concerned enough with humanity to say that we should not, that 'never again' means something," a reference to a phrase commonly invoked by Jews about the Holocaust.

Explain to me what Cortez means when she says "never again" in the context of her description of the centers as "concentration camps".

When she says "never again", is she referring to some specific example from the past? Educate me. Then tell me how disappointed you are in me.

This splitting hairs about semantics is really beside the point. Whatever you choose to call it, what's happening at the detention centers is wrong. The dehumanization has already begun.

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Do you find it acceptable to have concentration camps as long as they don't reach the point of being death camps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saranus

This splitting hairs about semantics is really beside the point. Whatever you choose to call it, what's happening at the detention centers is wrong. The dehumanization has already begun.

You're both saying, "It isn't actually comparable to this historic atrocity at all, but it's still a very bad thing, so I'm going to keep referring to it by the term that immediately invokes that historical atrocity so we can subconsciously conflate them."

Honestly. I just gave you chuckleheads quotes from Cortez that she was purposefully equating the two as virtually the same. Can you at least agree that she misspoke? Or are you so freakin lockstepped in party rhetoric that you don't have the intelligence and good sense to distance yourself from this senselessness?

Tell me Cortez was wrong here. Or tell me she was right, and prepare to receive the well-deserved abuse that usually gets saved for Holocaust deniers.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl

How dare AoC use the literal definition of a word that has an inflammatory connotation to draw attention to human rights abuses affecting children and people seeking asylum

You're both saying, "It isn't actually comparable to this historic atrocity at all, but it's still a very bad thing, so I'm going to keep referring to it by the term that immediately invokes that historical atrocity so we can subconsciously conflate them."

Nope again. Can't speak for the others, but I am saying it is directly comparable to that historic atrocity, because that atrocity was not borne out of nothingness. It was preceded by a logical sequence of escalation. The comparison is being invoked purposefully because people believe it is 100% appropriate.

From the link you posted: "While the story of Auschwitz is complex as it was both a concentration & extermination camp in a context of war & occupation, the 12-years history of development of concentration camps in Nazi Germany is more complicated." (emphasis mine)

They acknowledge a distinction between full on extermination camps and concentration camps. They acknowledge that the death camps are preceded by a "12-years history of development".

Quote:

Honestly. I just gave you chuckleheads quotes from Cortez that she was purposefully equating the two as virtually the same. Can you at least agree that she misspoke? Or are you so freakin lockstepped in party rhetoric that you don't have the intelligence and good sense to distance yourself from this senselessness?

Tell me Cortez was wrong here. Or tell me she was right, and prepare to receive the well-deserved abuse that usually gets saved for Holocaust deniers.

It seems you are the one so lockstepped into rhetoric that you can't acknowledge or recognize serious human rights abuses happening under your nose at the hands of your government. Distance yourself from the senselessness of separating families and criminalizing refugees. Consider who will be on the right side of history here.

FOR THE CHEAP SEATS!!: Concentration Camps are defined as "the mass detention of civilians without trial".

__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

FOR THE CHEAP SEATS!!: Concentration Camps are defined as "the mass detention of civilians without trial".

Meh, don't waste time on that. Pretending that "concentration camps" didn't take on a new meaning after 1945 is like pretending the swastika didn't either. There's no sense pretending Cortez wasn't directly comparing them. And there's no sense pretending you aren't either, I see.

So let's move on from it:

Quote:

Nope again. Can't speak for the others, but I am saying it is directly comparable to that historic atrocity, because that atrocity was not borne out of nothingness. It was preceded by a logical sequence of escalation. The comparison is being invoked purposefully because people believe it is 100% appropriate.

No. Human rights violations born out of neglect or inadequate funding? That's terrible. It's something that needs to be fixed.

Rounding up a specific group of people for systematic extermination? That's a different ballgame. They don't link together. They don't compare. This position is as reprehensible as a Holocaust denier's, and I'll tell you why:

A Holocaust denier understates the historic atrocity so that he imagines what happened is comparable to lesser, observable things that might still happen today. Your position aggrandizes the lesser, observable things happening today in order to compare them to that historic atrocity - but since we see that these observable things are lesser, it brings down the magnitude of that atrocity.

Just because the American centers need improvements does not mean they are on some singular road that leads to Nazi death camps. If you were actually genuous in your dictionary use of "internment camp", then you'd notice the scores of examples of sites that never came close to looking like the Nazi's rendition! That dictionary definition of "concentration camp" isn't even so necessarily a bad situation.

But no, it's all hyperbole and false equivocation with ye. How many times have you gentlemen moaned and raged against false equivocation? And now, you can't tell us that it's wrong to have children sleeping crowded on the ground without screaming HOLOCAUST in summary!

Let bad things be understood as bad, in and of themselves. Don't play these stupid games. Don't go all Trumptard in your rhetoric.

You're both saying, "It isn't actually comparable to this historic atrocity at all, but it's still a very bad thing, so I'm going to keep referring to it by the term that immediately invokes that historical atrocity so we can subconsciously conflate them."

Do you need to see her quote again? We may as well include you on the survey.

I mean why would I need to see the quote again? You clearly know what we and AoC are doing

What's wrong with the lot of you? A soft-headed child in Congress misspeaks, and you think it's a carte blanche to downplay the Holocaust? You petty little political snots. Recalibrate yourselves back to reality.

What's wrong with me? What's wrong with you? It's not exactly controversial historically that the USA put the Japanese in concentration camps, even if we labeled them as "internment camps." Roosevelt even explicitly says as much before we put lipstick on the pig by calling them "internment camps."

Quote:

Roosevelt underlined this concern when he proposed to the Chief of Naval Operations on August 10, 1936, ". . . that every Japanese citizen or non-citizen on the Islands of Oahu who meets these Japanese ships [arriving in Hawaii] or has any connection with their officers or men should be secretly but definitely identified and his or her name be placed on a special list of those who would be the first to be placed in a concentration camp in the event of trouble."

Quote:

As a classified FBI memorandum of [1938] reported: "Colonel H. R. Oldfield in charge of Military Intelligence for the Ninth Corps area [headquartered in San Francisco] confidentially related to [FBI] Agent J. H. Rice that he was compiling data reflecting the Japanese population and determining those areas where the majority of the Japanese reside in California. The purpose of this information is in case at a future date it might be necessary to establish concentration camps for Japanese in case of emergency."

But most scholars and historians refer to them as concentration camps because that is what they were.

Edit: If you would like, I can also dig up additional evidence that Roosevelt and other American politicians were calling them "concentration camps" after the Executive Order 9066 in March 1942 as well.

This is not downplaying the Holocaust/Shoah and the death camps. It's recognizing our own use of concentration camps in WW2. (We also targeted some German and Italian-American citizens for camps.) Do we commonly associate concentration camps with the Jewish death camps? Yes, because of how utterly horrific that was in the scale of genocide. But Jews, Roma, LGBTQ, Communists, etc. were gathered into concentration camps before the institution of the "Final Solution" and the death camps. AOC is not wrong here. So not calling them concentration camps downplays the use of concentration camps during this time period.

What's wrong with me? What's wrong with you? It's not exactly controversial historically that the USA put the Japanese in concentration camps, even if we labeled them as "internment camps." Roosevelt even explicitly says as much before we put lipstick on the pig by calling them "internment camps."

But most scholars and historians refer to them as concentration camps because that is what they were.

Edit: If you would like, I can also dig up additional evidence that Roosevelt and other American politicians were calling them "concentration camps" after the Executive Order 9066 in March 1942 as well.

This is not downplaying the Holocaust/Shoah and the death camps. It's recognizing our own use of concentration camps in WW2. (We also targeted some German and Italian-American citizens for camps.) Do we commonly associate concentration camps with the Jewish death camps? Yes, because of how utterly horrific that was in the scale of genocide. But Jews, Roma, LGBTQ, Communists, etc. were gathered into concentration camps before the institution of the "Final Solution" and the death camps. AOC is not wrong here. So not calling them concentration camps downplays the use of concentration camps during this time period.

It's funny. For the bulk of his life, George Takei would talk about the his experience in Japanese internment camps, or "prison camps" as he would more appropriately specify. Then Cortez shoots off some false equivocation, and all of a sudden he starts calling them concentration camps.https://www.google.com/amp/s/io9.giz...1533358984/amp

I guess he doesn't want his own history to get left behind as the new false equivalences get running.